Working for one of the largest publishers in the world, I can report that ad blocking software categorically prevents an impression from being registered. The mechanics of what happens is beyond me, although I do know that the earlier attempts at ad blocking added entries to the HOSTS file to prevent proper DNS resolution.
As to your other comparisons (i.e., TV, DVDs, etc.), the ad industry position is that it's just like blocking online advertising and that -- if not stealing -- you are failing to honor your end of the ad-supported publisher/audience "contract."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony99CA
I agree about not getting clicks, but are you sure that ad blockers actually prevent the impressions? I can see two ways for the software to work:
- Basically rewrite the HTML to remove ad sections. That will block impressions.
- Rewrite the HTML to download the ad but hide it. That will generate the impression, but won't display that ad. (Of course, that's in some sense cheating the advertiser, but that's another issue.)
As for ad blocking being "stealing", I'll disagree. Do you fast forward through commercials on TV or DVDs? If so, isn't that basically like blocking ads?
And what about annoying forms of ads? I personally don't mind banner ads, but what about pop-ups or pop-unders, interstitials, Flash or in-line text ads? Is somebody who allows banner ads but blocks pop-ups stealing? (And don't get me started on those annoying in-line text ads. I'm glad Jason allows turning those off.)
I view ad blocking as harmful to the ad-supported model, but certainly not stealing. Depriving somebody of revenue is not necessarily stealing.
Steve |